well as the theory stands today I think it would. But I am not one to decide which is why I said data would need to be collected over a "long" period of time. So if global temperatures continue to decline say for over 10 years, 20 years? hundred years? a thousand years" you don't think it would be safe to say the Globe is NOT warming??? but cooling?
remember I am being hypothetical here and not that it is going to get cooler cause no one can predict that.
I think I have addressed this same question at least 20 times in this thread alone. No, they do not. However, for years we have been inundated with reports from AGW alarmists of how droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and reductions in snowfall are the result of anthropogenic global warming. Now we are experiencing what is probably a short-term cooling trend, and the weather events are consistent with that. Darn! (Say the AGW Alarmists) What are are we going to do now? In response, the Warmists have tried to change the name of their agenda from "global warming" to "climate change". The beauty of this change is that now any weather event or alteration in climate trends is eligible to be claimed as evidence that their theories are being proved true. Literally anything. Anyone who buys into this rebranding effort has to be either 1) religiously devoted to the cause, or 2) irretrievably stupid. Maybe I just have too much faith in people, but it is my sense that it is very difficult for someone to simultaneously have the intelligence necessary to command speech and still be stupid enough to be fooled by this thinly-veiled con job. So it appears that a very large majority of the believers in the recently rebranded "climate change" agenda are people of deep faith and devotion. And that is seriously how I see you guys. Misguided though you may be.
lol wut? Link pls. K thnx bye. lol wut? Link pls. K thnx bye. Funny, most everyone here sees you as a disingenious twerp.
You have said it 20 times and then continued to post weather incidents as if it is supposed to mean something in support of your Anti-AGW agenda. So if these weather anecdotes mean nothing, why post them or start a thread about them? Once everyone including you(apparently) agrees that the individual weather accounts are meaningless in regards to AGW, why keep posting them? You have ignored scientific data presented to you multiple times. You don't have to agree with it, but you act like it isn't there, and don't even address any of the points being made.
This might be of interest to multiple parties. I got to see a talk recently by UC Berkeley's Richard Muller. Now, you might say "well he is a looney leftie out of the gate!" But no, he hates the leftist culture of Berkeley. Anyway, he's a "maverick" physicist who's always been going against the grain, and recently he's turned to look at global warming. He's a very, very smart guy. A McArthur "genius" prize winner. He's also a little egotistical and obsessed with upsetting the apple cart, but that can be a good thing, particularly for smart people. He's sometimes cited as a lead "skeptic" of AGW, and indeed, I found he's recently appeared on the Glenn Beck show (or whatever he calls his show.) He has a nice book entitled "Physics for Future Presidents," (covers terrorism, nuclear weapons, and climate, among other topics), and he's been a government adviser. So I attended an hour-long talk where he discussed AGW, and here's what I can relay, almost straight from his mouth. It will be interesting to see what some posters cherry pick from this and what they ignore. 1. He really ripped into the IPCC and their sloppy work in several instances. I was a little surprised about it, but I believe a lot of what he says. For instance, their treatment of Himalayan glaciers was just piss poor. Overall, he said the IPCC is full of good scientists of good conscience, but it's "unfortunate" that they have a few sloppy acts around the edges. He emphasized that, when the stakes seem very high and the messages very important, there is a natural tendency to "get the message right" but every fiber of a scientist's being must be directed to being more careful and skeptical than ever. I agree with him here, on that last point at least. 2. He basically agreed with the IPCC bottom line: there is a 90% chance that humans have contributed to the warming of the last 50 years. In 2003, he published that the right number might be 70%, but he's not really a climate scientist. 3. He emphasized that the basic science of CO2 in the atmosphere has been established and incontrovertible since 1895. That's a strong statement from a skeptic, and it's one I agree with. He said, "you don't need a fancy computer model to predict what CO2 does in the atmosphere." Just look at its infrared absorption spectrum. I've talked about the fundamental chemistry of this many times on this BBS, but those who want to deny any worry about AGW just ignore this, every single time. 4. He ripped into Al Gore more than I expected. He said Al Gore has given way too many people the impression that he's a scientist and he was a bit manipulative with his presentation of data in his film. All that said, he still said Al Gore could be a crucial force for good in the years ahead. Gore was, in Tenn., a loud advocate for nuclear power. If he would take up that mantle again, "it could do the world a lot of good." I agree with that. 5. Interestingly, he said our real hope is cloud cover. If the globe just increases its cloud cover by 2%, that would counteract the effects of our increased CO2. I did not know that, but I believe his numbers. Since a warmer globe puts more water vapor in the air, it's possible that this will save us. he criticizes IPCC for not fully discussing this factor. What's funny is the disingenuous posts of someone like Mojorge fly in the face of the basic science. More water vapor in the air means more snow in some areas, etc, but let's move on to the real scoop. 6. He basically thinks events like Copenhagen are completely crazy. We need to try, but "The US and Europe are absolutely not the problem." You can check out his article in the Wall Street Journal. 7. He did a very interesting study of hurricanes that seems to contradict anyone who says that hurricane intensity has been increasing as global temperatures rise, etc. He actually has great points here, and I am persuaded by his arguments. Okay, that's it. Let's all pray for more cloud cover, b/c China isn't really going to cut back, and we're going to have quickly doubled CO2. Meanwhile, we can keep laughing about snow storms. Fascinating topic, but maybe more for the cultural anthropology than the science, in the end. (I won't go through re-debunking the disingenuous usage of the 12,000-year ice cap photo, etc, since I've done that in some detail in other threads where the same poster posted the same thing. That's the definition of disingenuous.)
thank you for sharing your input and what you heard from the conference you attended. For once you actually discussed the topic at hand instead of just jumping to personal attacks. I think we can clearly see there needs to be a lot more research done and nothing is conclusive which was my point. There are folks out there who think the science is done. Also I am glad your post reiterates my point of the IPCC and their methods of collecting data. It is flawed and sloppy and does not present accurate information at all.
Thanks for the information, B-Bob. However if our only hope is increase in cloud coverage, then we might be doomed. I remember I heard in Nature podcast last year that the currently accepted model predicts that water vapor actually produces a positive feedback to temperature increase, because water vapor itself is a strong green house gas. Although more formation of clouds will reflect some sunlight, the overall effect is positive. IMO Copenhagen was a complete disaster. Too many countries with too many agenda. I think a better way is to just have a conference between America, Europe, Russia, China and India, then maybe Brazil and a few others. The rest of the world doesn't matter as they don't produce that much green house gases anyway. Between the few most prominent players, I think there's a good chance something can be worked out so that we don't destroy our only planet.
If you have read the other thread, B-Bob was actually trying to discuss the science with Mojoman in his first thread on global warming (If you seriously wish to debate the science on global warming, B-Bob had some excellent posts in this thread), who conveniently ignored anything B-Bob said, and just post and repost the same image of a frozen earth a dozen times. Any intellectual discussion ends right there when one party had his ears (or eyes) completely blocked out. Nobody will care about this, but Mojoman's credibility to me dropped to negative infinity in that thread, and I will not be wasting my time trying to discuss anything intelligently with him in the D&D. There needs to be a lot more research done, but from what we currently know, if we keep on pumping CO2 and other green house gases into the atmosphere, we would be in major trouble, and we are more than 90% sure this is what will happen. What we are not so sure about is just how deep we are going to be in trouble, and how can we deal with them. But if we just ignore what we already know and just keep looking for trouble, we will find it one day. Again to borrow B-Bob's wisdom, we know the effect of green house gases much better than the effect of cholesterol on cardiovascular diseases. You can keep eating all the cholesterols you want, until something bad happens. IPCC's problem is that instead of saying "if you keep eating all those cholesterol you will have a very high probability of a heart disease when you get past 50", they say "you will die from all those cholesterol you eat at the age of 53". IPCC really needs to stop shooting themselves in the foot with the way they present their results, and possibly the way they do their research (which I am in no position to judge), but the fundamental science is indisputable.
Here is an interesting article by a friend of the currently popular AGW narrative at the Washington Post discussing the issue of the weather as it relates to AGW. This is one of the saner discussions of this topic I have encountered, even though I do not necessarily agree with absolutely everything she is saying here. [RQUOTER]Global Warming's Snowball Fight The back-to-back snowstorms in the capital were an inconvenient meteorological phenomenon for Al Gore. "It's going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries 'uncle'," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) exulted on Twitter. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) posted photos on Facebook of "Al Gore's New Home" -- a six-foot igloo the Inhofe family built on Capitol Hill. "Where is Al Gore?" taunted Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). "He has not been seen since the snow and the arctic blast have pummeled the Eastern Seaboard in America, turning it into a frozen tundra," reported Fox News's Glenn Beck, who also tastefully suggested hari-kari for climate scientists. As a scientific proposition, claiming that heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic debunks global warming theory is about as valid as claiming that the existence of John Edwards debunks the theory of evolution. In fact, warming theory suggests that you'd see trends toward heavier snows, because warmer air carries more moisture. This latest snowfall, though, is more likely the result of a strong El Niño cycle that has parked the jet stream right over the mid-Atlantic states. Still, there's some rough justice in the conservatives' cheap shots. In Washington's blizzards, the greens were hoisted by their own petard. For years, climate-change activists have argued by anecdote to make their case. Gore, in his famous slide shows, ties human-caused global warming to increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought and the spread of mosquitoes, pine beetles and disease. It's not that Gore is wrong about these things. The problem is that his storm stories have conditioned people to expect an endless worldwide heat wave, when in fact the changes so far are subtle. Other environmentalists have undermined the cause with claims bordering on the outlandish; they've blamed global warming for shrinking sheep in Scotland, more shark and cougar attacks, genetic changes in squirrels, an increase in kidney stones and even the crash of Air France Flight 447. When climate activists make the dubious claim, as a Canadian environmental group did, that global warming is to blame for the lack of snow at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, then they invite similarly specious conclusions about Washington's snow -- such as the Virginia GOP ad urging people to call two Democratic congressmen "and tell them how much global warming you get this weekend." Argument-by-anecdote isn't working. Consider the words of Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the energy committee, who told The Hill newspaper last week that the snow "makes it more challenging" to make the case about global warming's danger to people who aren't "taking time to review the scientific arguments." Scientific arguments, too, are problematic. In a conference call arranged Thursday by the liberal Center for American Progress to refute the snow antics of Inhofe et al., the center's Joe Romm made the well-worn statements that "the overwhelming weight of the scientific literature" points to human-caused warming and that doubters "don't understand the science." The science is overwhelming -- but not definitive. Romm's claim was inadvertently shot down by his partner on the call, the Weather Underground's Jeff Masters, who confessed that "there's a huge amount of natural variability in the climate system" and not enough years of measurements to know exactly what's going on. "Unfortunately we don't have that data so we are forced to make decisions based on inadequate data." The scientific case has been further undermined by high-profile screw-ups. First there were the hacked e-mails of a British research center that suggested the scientists were stacking the deck to overstate the threat. Now comes word of numerous errors in a 2007 report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including the bogus claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear in 25 years. For those concerned about warming, it's time for a shift in emphasis. Fortunately, one has already been provided to them by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has done more than any Democrat to keep climate legislation alive this year. His solution: skip the hurricanes and Himalayan glaciers and keep the argument on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on foreign oil, some of that going to terrorists rather than to domestic job creation. Al Gore, for one, seems to realize it's time for a new tactic. New TV ads released during last week's blizzards by Gore's climate advocacy group say nothing about climate science. They show workers asking their senators for more jobs from clean energy. That's a good sign. If the Washington snows persuade the greens to put away the slides of polar bears and pine beetles and to keep the focus on national security and jobs, it will have been worth the shoveling. [/RQUOTER]
You're welcome, but this is hardly the first time I've done this. Seriously search through the last 5-8 years of these GW threads. My MO is discussion in general, and then goofiness. If some people have proven that they're not interested in discussion, over the last, oh, 5-8 years on this board, then I will call it like I see it, sorry. I think that's better than feeding the trolls. I don't see you as a troll at all, to make that clear, even though we disagree on a few things. Cheers.
Very good article. Man is certainly attributing to the environment in negative way. The scope of the impact is hard to determine for certainly. The sad part is that many people blindly follow this so called science and feel we need implement drastic measures such as cap and trade, which does absolutely nothing in helping the environment. It makes them feel better that something is trying to be done instead of taking it upon themselves to make a difference. If you're going to make stupid arguments that the recent snowfall supports (or denys) AWG, while ignoring the facts such as the el nino conditions, then start with yourself and encourage others to make a difference. Quit being a hypocrite like Al Gore. Trade in your gas guzzling SUV's and trucks. Recycle everything possible. Does everyone in your house need their own TV's? Or that 50" TV with every accessory possible? What about running your AC/Heat at less than ideal temperatures? The hypocrisy on this subject amazes me, but when it comes to die hard political views, nobody should be surprised. We all would rather someone else fit our bill. Thats the new American way.
This is the "cherry picking" I'm talking about. It's exactly the cherry-picking. Let's have an honest discussion. Muller, the skeptic, said that he had many criticisms of IPCC, but one of his criticisms was not the vast majority of their data, nor their conclusions! Think about that. He said, maybe just maybe it's as low as 70% probability that humans are contributing to the observed warming. Think about that. The most skeptical scientifically legit view you can find, truly, thinks there's at least a 70% chance. So let me ask you, and others: if a top mechanic tells you there is a 70-90% chance that the gasoline you're using is ruining your beautiful antique car, would you change to the brand he recommends? I would. If your doctor says that your current diet will result, with a 70-90% chance, in a heart attack, will you change what you eat? I would. But no, with climate, you see, we have a very simple concept regarding CO2 and its absorption of radiation. Very simple. Established in 1895 by Arhenius. Recalculated with better physical chemistry data in the 1950's. Computed conclusively in the 1970's. Now taken up by a large panel, which, if you know the scientific history, is pretty much irrelevant. We take all this in, and we say, "yeah, the risks are pretty big, but ... no, just doesn't feel right." Not that it's easy to change a species-wide behavior. I'd say it's impossible. China and other quickly developing countries to place carbon worries ahead of the great growth of their economies. It's probably impossible. Pray for cloud cover!
Is it even possible to for someone to disagree with you on this topic and still be regarded as engaged in an honest discussion? Based on what I have seen, you seem to have a very low level of tolerance for any dissent from your point of view on this issue.
Listen, either you're Baltic or States. You can't be both. I know they are both purple, but the shades are different. Get it together.
I would think that depends on if you ignore the scientific data he uses to show the flaw in some of the data you have presented. If you ignore it and pretend like it doesn't exist then it isn't an honest discussion.
Thanks. Are you going to respond to my last post? Are you in agreement with the points I raised in it?
